So who wants to remain in the EU?

[Scuffers]

v8250 said:

I have a well known colleague who buys failing businesses...many household names...post acquisition, the first thing he does is fire the management team, the individuals who've driven the company into the ground replacing them with proven management who know how to get things done; his answer is, "The one part of a business that's always replaceable is the senior management team...it's rarely the employees who are responsible for business failures."

This, of course, is not reflective on any individual/s within this discussion...

so, apply this theory to Tata and SSI

I suspect it falls flat on it's face because the problem there is not one of management, but environment.

If we left the EU and in the process dumped all the green stupidity and carbon b0ll0cks, along with some review of business rates, and import tariffs on chinese steel exports (ie, anti dumping as the US have very successfully done), they could have stayed working and earning money not just for the employees and local economies, but also the country as a whole.

How *ANYBODY* can argue the EU is a good thing in this context beggars belief.

Our manufacturing and heavy industries are being decimated by stupidly high energy prices, becuse of the EU green agenda and our own stupid government's carbon taxes.

[Zod]

FiF said:

Zod said:

FiF said:

Zod said:

FiF said:

Zod said:

FiF said:

Well we're going to have to differ, as would Norway and Iceland, claiming that member states and they have the opportunity to have direct expert input at the committee and working group stage which is where the real work is done. They seem very happy with the arrangement.

Believe me, their influence is very limited on the stuff that I see.

Sorry, missed this one. According to the EEA agreement EFTA states have a veto don't forget. All EFTA states must agree before any new EU legislation applies to dealings between EFTA states and the EU.

That's a very limited sub-set of regulation. EFTA includes Switzerland, don't forget. If we were just in EFTA, not the EEA, like Switzerland, we'd be free of most EU legislation in technical terms, but like Switzerland, we'd have to comply with most in reality.

Limited sub-set of regulations. Norway complies with 3,000, in the same time UK has had to comply with 18,000. Literally a limited sub-set alright.

Anyway Norway model is only one option for an early stepping stone in the whole process. But at outset we'd be complying with all the regulations on the basis of continuity and stability.

You are confusing the EEA and EFTA. Norway is in the EEA, as well as EFTA. There is no veto on EEA regulation.

No I'm not confusing them at all, I'm talking about the EEA agreement January 1 1994 which brought together the EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States — Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway — in a single market, referred to as the "Internal Market

From here report to the Storting.

"6.1.4 The right of veto

According to the principle of unanimity applied in the EEA Joint Committee, all the EFTA states must agree in order for new EU legislation to be integrated into the EEA Agreement and for it to apply to cooperation between the EFTA states and the EU. If one EFTA state opposes integration, this also affects the other EFTA states in that the rules will not apply to them either, neither in the individual states nor between the EFTA states themselves nor in their relations with the EU. This possibility that each EFTA state has to object to new rules that lie within the scope of the EEA Agreement becoming applicable to the EFTA pillar is often referred to as these parties’ right of veto.

So far, this right has not been exercised. This is partly because when EU legislation is to be integrated into the EEA Agreement it is submitted to the EEA Joint Committee at the final stage of an extensive process of information and consultation between the contracting parties. The purpose of this process is to ensure that agreement is reached on such decisions."


Personal comment, the expansionist behaviour of the EU both in terms of territory and in competencies which it is increasingly claiming for itself is, nevertheless, reducing Norway's room for manoeuvre and ,furthermore, because the EU is increasingly making actions outside the scope of the EEA agreement then competitiveness issues could arise.

But again to remind the Norway option isn't the end solution, merely one that is possible as the legal instruments already exist.

Yes, you are confusing it! That principle applies to matters that affect the EFTA states, not the EEA states. It is effectively a protection for Switzerland.

[FredClogs]

Scuffers said:

so, apply this theory to Tata and SSI

I suspect it falls flat on it's face because the problem there is not one of management, but environment.

If we left the EU and in the process dumped all the green stupidity and carbon b0ll0cks, along with some review of business rates, and import tariffs on chinese steel exports (ie, anti dumping as the US have very successfully done), they could have stayed working and earning money not just for the employees and local economies, but also the country as a whole.

How *ANYBODY* can argue the EU is a good thing in this context beggars belief.

Our manufacturing and heavy industries are being decimated by stupidly high energy prices, becuse of the EU green agenda and our own stupid government's carbon taxes.

It's true that in the UK we have very high energy prices (largely due to Thatcher), but the reality on the steel industry is that the Chinese *NEED* to sell their steel at below cost prices. If you're offered to buy something at below cost price then it's a literal no brainer. Should we raise tariffs on imported steel? Well it's an option, but perhaps not the best political move given the importance of China as a supplier and customer of the EU.

Like I said before the win win here is to try to get consensus with China on regulation and standards both in the treatment of the environment and their work force so that we have a level playing field which raises standards and quality not lowers it and the only way things like that could be negotiated are by big powerful political super powers, it's not something we could negotiate or even contemplate even raising with China on our own, our market is too small and supply to them too insignificant . All these things are far more complicate than just screaming "RED TAPE" and pointing at Brussels.

[Scuffers]

You would do well to look up the history of the steel market over the last 30 years, you might learn something.

[Guybrush]

DavidJG said:

Guybrush said:

'Migrants are pushing NHS to breaking point': Top cancer doctor warns health tourists are bleeding hospitals dry with demand for treatment.

Professor Angus Dalgleish is preparing speech speaking out against EU.
Says British hospitals are struggling to cope with demand from refugees.
Will insist this considerable expense partly explains NHS's £3billion deficit.

The NHS has been left 'on its knees' by uncontrolled migration from the EU, a leading cancer expert will warn tomorrow.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3438040/To...

Hmmmm. Last time I looked, large elements of the NHS were staffed by migrants. In some areas, we'd struggle to run the NHS without them.

An article from the Daily Fail hardly counts as the most trustworthy place to find facts.

In terms of migration, we have to consider two areas - firstly, people who come to the UK from within the EU to work. Errr, is this such a bad thing? People who contribute to our economy, pay taxes, add something to our society? Perhaps they could even be responsible for elements of economic growth? Is this such a bad thing? Secondly, we have the non-EU refugee issue. This is a very real issue. I suspect that were the UK to leave the EU, these people would attempt to sail to the UK in the false belief that it's better here than in mainland Europe. However, we have to consider that most of these are human beings fleeing very real persecution. As part of the developed world maybe, just maybe, we should think about doing something to help them rather than simply complaining about all the bl**dy foreigners who want to come here and scrounge off the state? Of course, we need some form of screening programme as not all of the migrants from the middle east / north Africa are entirely what they seem to be but the percentage of 'bad' ones is quite small.

In Economic terms: I've said it before, I'll say it again: no-one truly knows what will happen to the UK if we vote to leave. What we can predict is that it's unlikely to be good. We'd effectively have to start from zero in terms of trade - almost all of our trade agreements and partnerships are through the EU. We won't be able to build new agreements overnight - it can take years of negotiation. Short term economic recession is almost certain, and the recovery time is unknown, but best case would be around 5 years of economic turmoil, with at least another 5 years to recover to where we are now. Politically, Scotland would have a strong case for a new independence vote, and would probably leave the UK to join up with the EU. This would weaken the UK further, and deepen a recession that was started by Brexit.

In short - if you don't mind a recession, if you don't mind watching unemployment soaring, if you think people who come here to work are a bad thing, then by all means vote to leave. But, if the UK leaves the EU then I and many others like me who employ people in areas that depend on the EU may just take ourselves, our money, and our jobs out of the UK.

They don't all come here to work. A great many are totally unqualified, in fact completely unprepared for the cultural shock for our society that we would merely consider developed. I wonder how many of the hundreds of thousands (over 330,000 last year) who came to the UK have found jobs. If so, to the detriment of our own population? Trade agreements...you must know your argument is invalid, have you not noticed the facts put forward so many times?

[Scuffers]

DavidJG said:

Hmmmm. Last time I looked, large elements of the NHS were staffed by migrants. In some areas, we'd struggle to run the NHS without them.

can't let that one go unchallenged.

Yes, there are a lot of migrants working in the NHS, BUT, the VAST MAJORITY are not from the EU, they are from Pakistan, India, Asia, etc.

so, want to try that one again?

Edited by Scuffers on Tuesday 9th February 18:04

[KrissKross]

Scuffers said:

Guybrush said:

DavidJG said:

Hmmmm. Last time I looked, large elements of the NHS were staffed by migrants. In some areas, we'd struggle to run the NHS without them.

can't let that one go unchallenged.

Yes, there are a lot of migrants working in the NHS, BUT, the VAST MAJORITY are not from the EU, they are from Pakistan, India, Asia, etc.

so, want to try that one again?

And to repeat again, so are the patients

[v8250]

Scuffers said:

so, apply this theory to Tata and SSI

I suspect it falls flat on it's face because the problem there is not one of management, but environment.

If we left the EU and in the process dumped all the green stupidity and carbon b0ll0cks, along with some review of business rates, and import tariffs on chinese steel exports (ie, anti dumping as the US have very successfully done), they could have stayed working and earning money not just for the employees and local economies, but also the country as a whole.

How *ANYBODY* can argue the EU is a good thing in this context beggars belief.

Our manufacturing and heavy industries are being decimated by stupidly high energy prices, becuse of the EU green agenda and our own stupid government's carbon taxes.

Scuffers, I'm not going to beat you up here but would like to 'gently' add a realistic perspective to your notes above, noting that you and I are on the same side. So kindly, don't give me a hard time by return

The theory is in fact not theory, it is standard modern day business. Whether you like it or not all businesses have to be competitive to remain in business...this is directly relevant to TataSteel and SSI. The issues with TataSteel and SSI are not exclusively one of environmental pollution or costs associated, they are of market production cost and market demand. The reality today is that steel production/heavy industry is not competitively viable in the UK. It is not that we do not have the skills sets, we do...it's down to cost of production and distribution to point of usage. Simply, we can not...except in exceptional circumstances supplying very specialized skills/product...compete with some other overseas nations i.e. steel production from Asia and North America.

All energy prices across the whole of Europe are high, it is not only the UK. And high energy prices are not down to the EU green agenda. Energy price supply has always been, and always will be, high to the UK. One only has to understand our geographical location and the UK Govt energy taxation tariffs to understand why. But, even with higher energy cost to business, the blame does not lie with the EU. In fact, we now have a world leading industry in green energy technologies as a direct result of UK energy costs.

The UK must finally wake up to the fact that, with few exceptions, we are not a country of heavy industry and where needed...especially those critical of this...people need to retrain, re-educate themselves to be competitive in the job market and be sure they get off their arses to provide the skills that are needed in and for UK plc. Griping that heavy industry is decimated is an argument 30 years out of date.

Some years ago I was involved with a well known technology company, based in South Wales. This was during the late 90's/early 00's when the steel plants in the area were shedding workers due to inability to produce steel at an international price. I was approached by the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Development Agency, both asking for me to recruit some of those redundant folk. Out of 100's of CV's there was not one person with the necessary skill sets of whom we could comfortably employ.

On the hopeful and much expected success of a good Brexit, our environmental position will not change. Our/the UK's working partners and businesses that we/UK plc sell to will still expect environmental responsibility with most national and international clients expecting, as a minimum, for the suppliers to be environmentally smart with good environmental policy. If they can/do not attain this, they don't get the business.

Lastly, one must not criticize environmental progress. We only have one planet and have no option but to protect it. We have seen tremendous technical and environmental advances over the past 20-25 years. These advances are intelligently used by the smart thinking companies. Those that are not smart are left behind...and, ultimately, do not have a place in modern day business.

Edited by v8250 on Tuesday 9th February 18:18

[s2art]

v8250 said:

All energy prices across the whole of Europe are high, it is not only the UK. And high energy prices are not down to the EU green agenda. Energy price supply has always been, and always will be, high to the UK. One only has to understand our geographical location and the UK Govt energy taxation tariffs to understand why. But, even with higher energy cost to business, the blame does not lie with the EU. In fact, we now have a world leading industry in green energy technologies as a direct result of UK energy costs.

You are going to have to justify that. Natural gas and coal are really cheap, hell even oil is cheap. The UK could produce much cheaper energy than it does now if it wasnt for the push for near useless renewables. BTW what world leading green technology industry do we have? Serious question.

[FiF]

Zod said:

Yes, you are confusing it! That principle applies to matters that affect the EFTA states, not the EEA states. It is effectively a protection for Switzerland.

It applies to Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. As written.

Gives up.

[v8250]

s2art said:

You are going to have to justify that. Natural gas and coal are really cheap, hell even oil is cheap. The UK could produce much cheaper energy than it does now if it wasnt for the push for near useless renewables. BTW what world leading green technology industry do we have? Serious question.

NatGas and coal are relatively priced, but we use more than we can produce and are at the whim of international supplies. Oil is currently low cost, I'm sure I don't have to explain why.

As for green technologies...UK engineering Co's supply their product, design and consulting services worldwide. Go read our abilities in CHP, TriGen, GasTurbine, EfW, energy system controls/design. We have leading consulting service Co's that are truly global Co's in their respective fields. There are even two UK CHP/Biogas Co's who have taken the market to North America and are successfully beating the Yanks on their home turf...the US now providing their largest growth market. Do take a close look at this market segment...frustratingly, it's one of the least publicized and deserves far greater exposure.

[mikees]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Axionknight said:

Mario149 said:

I think this is a point worth considering. We are one of the major contributors to the EU, and from the charts I've seen our money equals that given by the 15 bottom countries or so. If we leave and without us it does go tits up, that's gonna have a pretty major effect on us.

Perhaps the EU should consider that very point before offering the UK a few derisory "reforms" that amount to absolutely squat.

Absolutely. the old `It is he who pays the piper calls the tune' saying seems to have been largely forgotten as far as the UK in the EU goes.
Their arrogance that we will continue to be the second largest net contributor into EU coffers, (not only in terms of the 55 million pound `membership' fee we pay every day, nor the millions of pounds in the little surprise fees they impose on the UK amongst others, which strangely don't apply to Germany or France???) but also in the fact that we import more from the EU, than we sell into the EU. and yet get so little in return (although I suspect there are some making big money out of it, (at the expense of the many) who want to remain members.
Odd how Germany pays in the most, and seem to have the biggest influence on the EU,s direction, yet the requests of the UK, its second largest net EU contributor of funds are largely ignored. also oddly by those who will be worst affected financially if the UK does leave the `club' as they will each have to stump up far more than they do now, to cover the shortfall that the UK `was' paying in to keep the `club' alive.
Something very rotten has always been, and is even now going on with the EU, with no indication that they want to change, or even consider and amend their corrupt ways in the slightest, which is why overall, OUT seems to be the way to go.

Seems an ideal point for this link.

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

[Zod]

FiF said:

Zod said:

Yes, you are confusing it! That principle applies to matters that affect the EFTA states, not the EEA states. It is effectively a protection for Switzerland.

It applies to Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. As written.

Gives up.

Well, I'm going to admit that you have uncovered a veto right that I was unaware of (principally because it has never been used), so I was wrong on that point. It happens.

The most important part of what you posted is this:

"Therefore, even though Norway has a genuine right of veto which gives us freedom to manoeuvre from a legal point of view, it is the Government’s view that our room for manoeuvre both as regards finding compromises with the EU in the EEA Joint Committee and as regards exercising our right of veto has been significantly curtailed since we entered into the EEA Agreement. This trend will be exacerbated by future enlargements of the EU to include new member states."

The Norwegians have this concern:

"The possibility of exercising the right of veto in the EEA is part of the larger question of the scope of Norway’s room for manoeuvre on broad policy issues relating to important economic sectors, in relation to an EU pillar in which an increasing number of policy areas are being viewed as part of an integrated whole. The problem is rendered particularly relevant by the fact that the EU is increasingly implementing measures outside the scope of the EEA Agreement which have implications for Norway’s relative competitiveness in the internal market."

For us, the concern would be multiplied many times, given the relative importance of our financial sector.

So, I accepted that I was wrong on that point of detail. I am not an EU/EEA constitutional lawyer. But the point is the same: in the EEA, we would have much more limited scope to influence the scope and content of EU legislation and regulation. You will not find a financial services lawyer in the City who disagrees with me. If I thought that being outside the EU would benefit the City and British industry by allowing us to legislate entirely for ourselves in order to improve our competitive position, I'd be Brexit's most enthusiastic supporter.

Edited by Zod on Tuesday 9th February 19:00

[FiF]

Zod said:

You have no idea what you are talking about.

If you are actually interested, try starting here.

Edited by Zod on Tuesday 9th February 18:47

Perfectly aware of that thanks, plus it even deals with the consultations I've been talking about and the different decision process in the two pillars.

Look, we're never going to agree on this so it's probably boring for everyone else to continue. Maybe it's something being lost in the communication, but I think you're wrong, and you think I plus Norway etc are wrong. So be it, not able to do anything about that. Cheers.

Edited to add, sorry Zod missed your later edit of the post just above this one. Thanks for agreeing that I wasn't talking complete Horlicks. Just to add that the extra bit you quoted agrees with my earlier personal comment that the situation is changing not to the benefit of Norway with increasing number of changes by the EU.

The other thing to add is that the reason the veto has never actually been used is claimed by Norway as being due to involvement in the consultation process at the early stages.

Anyway glad we sorted all that out in the end. All the best.

Edited by FiF on Tuesday 9th February 21:11

[s2art]

v8250 said:

s2art said:

You are going to have to justify that. Natural gas and coal are really cheap, hell even oil is cheap. The UK could produce much cheaper energy than it does now if it wasnt for the push for near useless renewables. BTW what world leading green technology industry do we have? Serious question.

NatGas and coal are relatively priced, but we use more than we can produce and are at the whim of international supplies. Oil is currently low cost, I'm sure I don't have to explain why.

As for green technologies...UK engineering Co's supply their product, design and consulting services worldwide. Go read our abilities in CHP, TriGen, GasTurbine, EfW, energy system controls/design. We have leading consulting service Co's that are truly global Co's in their respective fields. There are even two UK CHP/Biogas Co's who have taken the market to North America and are successfully beating the Yanks on their home turf...the US now providing their largest growth market. Do take a close look at this market segment...frustratingly, it's one of the least publicized and deserves far greater exposure.

Thanks for the info. I see no end to cheap fossil fuel due to the Yanks being a swing producer. If oil gets back to $50+ then a load of fracking wells get turned back on, in fact now the big boys are buying failed fracking wells, made uneconomic by the original business model, at a fraction of their original cost, it could be a lot less than $50.

And its only a question of time before we get fracking and coal gassifying. There is a lot of coal down there to gassify. So in a few years we will have secure energy supplies.

[don4l]

v8250 said:

don4l said:

The RoHS regulations closed down one of my suppliers with the loss of 80 jobs.

What was your supplier doing to be closed down by RoHS? Normally, the last thing any regulatory body wants to do is to force a business to close. They normally work with the organisation to implement safety change where/when needed.

I have seen cases of companies closed, but only where there's been continual lack of safety, poor safety record and frequent disregard for third party safety...and where the product being made is of such poor design it is simply not suitable to market. And genuine question, why/how did RoHS force the company closure?

The RoHS regulations banned the use of lead in solder. For manufacturers this meant retooling. This particular manufacturer made a wide variety of niche products in small volumes. The retooling costs would have been huge. So they just closed down the manufacturing division.

My own company redesigned one of their products, which cost us £40k, £6k was to get regulatory approval. Since 2011 we have sold 300 units. This item was, in our opinion, the most likely product to be profitable. The supplier had hundreds of items in their price book.

The funny thing is that the total amount of lead used in UK manufacturing was measured in 10's of kilograms. Lead in petrol contributed orders of magnitude more lead to the environment than electronics ever would. Lead water pipes also poisoned both us and the environment. The lead used in electronics really was insignificant.

The RoHS directive simply exported jobs, mainly to China.

[Scuffers]

don4l said:

The RoHS directive simply exported jobs, mainly to China.

I know of 3 major electronics manufacturers that shut up shop and moved production to China rather than redesign thousands of boards, cost well over 20,000 jobs all told.

[v8250]

s2art said:

Thanks for the info. I see no end to cheap fossil fuel due to the Yanks being a swing producer. If oil gets back to $50+ then a load of fracking wells get turned back on, in fact now the big boys are buying failed fracking wells, made uneconomic by the original business model, at a fraction of their original cost, it could be a lot less than $50.

And its only a question of time before we get fracking and coal gassifying. There is a lot of coal down there to gassify. So in a few years we will have secure energy supplies.

Yes, that makes sense...though I'm not a fan of fracking. The potential health repercussions, as seen elsewhere, are too extreme for me and my warm tree hugging nature is too ingrained. UK Govt and O&G see the process as an easy win to supply and theoretically secure future energy...but there will be accidents, there will be adverse health issues, there will be environmental accidents...and UK Govt/O&G will cover this up quoting commercial gain to risk factors. For me, why not invest in energy provision and technology that provides far greater energy efficiencies? Really, it's not difficult. Of course, I'm biased as this is part of my 9-5...designing and managing such projects.

[v8250]

don4l said:

The RoHS regulations banned the use of lead in solder. For manufacturers this meant retooling. This particular manufacturer made a wide variety of niche products in small volumes. The retooling costs would have been huge. So they just closed down the manufacturing division.

My own company redesigned one of their products, which cost us £40k, £6k was to get regulatory approval. Since 2011 we have sold 300 units. This item was, in our opinion, the most likely product to be profitable. The supplier had hundreds of items in their price book.

The funny thing is that the total amount of lead used in UK manufacturing was measured in 10's of kilograms. Lead in petrol contributed orders of magnitude more lead to the environment than electronics ever would. Lead water pipes also poisoned both us and the environment. The lead used in electronics really was insignificant.

The RoHS directive simply exported jobs, mainly to China.

Ah yes, lead...a brilliant material but not good for health. I'm guessing you're involved in PCB/component manufacturing/assembly? Re-tooling costs can be enormous...could they not have had the tooling made overseas? I've had tooling made in Hungary and Poland before at half the UK cost, albeit in different sectors. I've seen a number of successful tooling relined, it's been successful where the tooling was used in low-mid production volumes :. less tool wear/use rate. Re' lead in electronics...I started my career in electronics and saw huge H&S changes in the early 80's, this before RoHS existed...and even then the big issues were lead and CFC's. I remember two of our large scale UK manufacturers re-investing huge sums in new fully enclosed solder baths and extraction, and seeing the systems being fired up for the first time for factory and vendor approval testing. As a young engineer it was all hugely exciting.

Apologies All if this is off topic. Right back on track...have we Brexited yet?

[s2art]

v8250 said:

s2art said:

Thanks for the info. I see no end to cheap fossil fuel due to the Yanks being a swing producer. If oil gets back to $50+ then a load of fracking wells get turned back on, in fact now the big boys are buying failed fracking wells, made uneconomic by the original business model, at a fraction of their original cost, it could be a lot less than $50.

And its only a question of time before we get fracking and coal gassifying. There is a lot of coal down there to gassify. So in a few years we will have secure energy supplies.

Yes, that makes sense...though I'm not a fan of fracking. The potential health repercussions, as seen elsewhere, are too extreme for me and my warm tree hugging nature is too ingrained. UK Govt and O&G see the process as an easy win to supply and theoretically secure future energy...but there will be accidents, there will be adverse health issues, there will be environmental accidents...and UK Govt/O&G will cover this up quoting commercial gain to risk factors. For me, why not invest in energy provision and technology that provides far greater energy efficiencies? Really, it's not difficult. Of course, I'm biased as this is part of my 9-5...designing and managing such projects.

We have been fracking in the mainland UK (England mainly) for something like 40-50 years, with no big problems. And the technology is vastly better now. Remember that gas is not just an energy source but also feedstock for a variety of products. I have no problem with designing better systems with greater efficiency, but that can only provide a relatively small portion of our energy needs. Note that windpower causes reduced efficiency for the fossil power source. Nuclear could have been the answer, but we have blown that one. The cost of power from the proposed Hinkley point is just ridiculous.